Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No DefinitionsDefinition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle

What the science says...

Arctic sea ice has been retreating over the past 30 years. The rate of retreat is accelerating and in fact is exceeding most models' forecasts.

Climate Myth...

Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
"In 2007, the Northern Hemisphere reached a record low in ice coverage and the Northwest Passage was opened. At that point, we were told melting was occurring faster than expected. What you were not told was that the data that triggered this record is only available back to the late 1970s. We know the Northwest Passage had been open before." (Matt Rogers)

Global warming affects Arctic sea ice in various ways. Warming air temperatures have been observed over the past 3 decades by drifting buoys and radiometer satellites (Rigor 2000, Comiso 2003). Downward longwave radiation has increased, as expected when air temperature, water vapor and cloudiness increases (Francis 2006). More ocean heat is being transported into Arctic waters (Shimada 2006).

As sea ice melts, positive feedbacks enhance the rate of sea ice loss. Positive ice-albedo feedback has become a dominant factor since the mid-to-late 1990s (Perovich 2007). Older perennial ice is thicker and more likely to survive the summer melt season. It reflects more sunlight and transmits less solar radiation to the ocean. Satellite measurements have found over the past 3 decades, the amount of perennial sea ice has been steadily declining (Nghiem 2007). Consequently, the mean thickness of ice over the Arctic Ocean has thinned from 2.6 meters in March 1987 to 2.0 meters in 2007 (Stroeve 2008).

Global warming has a clearly observed, long term effect on Arctic sea ice. In fact, although climate models predict that Arctic sea ice will decline in response to greenhouse gas increases, the current pace of retreat at the end of the melt season is exceeding the models’ forecasts by around a factor of 3 (Stroeve 2007).

What caused the dramatic ice loss in 2007?

The sudden drop in sea ice extent in 2007 exceeded most expectations. The summer sea ice extent was 40% below 1980's levels and 20% below the previous record minimum set in 2005. The major factor in the 2007 melt was anomalous weather conditions.

An anticyclonic pattern formed in early June 2007 over the central Arctic Ocean, persisting for 3 months (Gascard 2008). This was coupled with low pressures over central and western Siberia. Persistent southerly winds between the high and low pressure centers gave rise to warmer air temperatures north of Siberia that promoted melt. The wind also transported ice away from the Siberian coast.

Both the wind patterns and reduced cloudliness were anomalies but not unprecedented. Similar patterns occurred in 1987 and 1977. However, past occurances didn't have the same dramatic effect as in 2007. The reason for the severe ice loss in 2007 was because the ice pack had suffered two decades of thinning and area reduction, making the sea ice more vulnerable to current weather conditions (Nghiem 2007).

Other Studies on the Cause of the Sea Ice Decline

Vinnikov et al. (1999) estimated the probability that the Arctic sea ice decline could simply be natural. The authors used very long control runs of both the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) and Hadley Centre climate models (5,000 years for the GFDL model) to assess the probability that the observed and model-predicted trends in Arctic sea ice extent occur by chance as the result of natural climate variability. They found that large trends in sea ice extent only appeared over short time intervals in the control run, due to natural variability alone. This suggests that natural variability will not cause large long-term Arctic sea ice trends.

Updating this analysis using observational data through 2011 (not even including the 2012 record low sea ice extent), the 32-year trend (1979-2011) is -530 thousand square km per decade, and the 20-year trend is -700 thousand square km per decade. Using the Vinnikov et al. results, these trends both correspond to probabilities ofwell under 0.1% of being due solely to natural variability.

Day et al. (2012) used five climate models to try and quantify the contribution of natural variations in Arctic sea ice changes. They found that between 5% and 30% of the Arctic sea ice decline from 1979 to 2010 could be attributed to the natural cycles of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO), and even less can be attributed to natural cycles since 1953, since these natural cycles tend to average out over longer timeframes (as Vinnikov also found).

"despite increased observational uncertainty in the pre-satellite era, the trend in [Arctic sea ice extent] over this longer period [1953–2010] is more likely to be representative of the anthropogenically forced component."

Stroeve et al. (2011) noted that in 2009-2010, the AO was in a state which should have resulted in a large sea ice extent; the fact that 2010 was a year of relatively low sea ice extent is indicative long-term human-caused sea ice decline.

"Based on relationships established in previous studies, the extreme negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) that characterized winter of 2009/2010 should have favored retention of Arctic sea ice through the 2010 summer melt season. The September 2010 sea ice extent nevertheless ended up as third lowest in the satellite record, behind 2007 and barely above 2008, reinforcing the long-term downward trend."

Notz and Marotzke (2012) also found very poor correlation between the AO and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Arctic sea ice extent (yellow and green in Figure 2), concluding:

"the available observations are sufficient to virtually exclude internal variability and self-acceleration as an explanation for the observed long-term trend, clustering, and magnitude of recent sea-ice minima. Instead, the recent retreat is well described by the superposition of an externally forced linear trend and internal variability. For the externally forced trend, we find a physically plausible strong correlation only with increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Our results hence show that the observed evolution of Arctic sea-ice extent is consistent with the claim that virtually certainly the impact of an anthropogenic climate change is observable in Arctic sea ice already today."

Conclusion

Recent discussion about ocean cycles have focused on how internal variability can slow down global warming. The 2007 and 2012 Arctic melts are a sobering example of the impact when internal variability enhances the long term global warming trend. Overall, the scientific literature is quite clear that natural variability alone cannot account for the long-term Arctic sea ice decline, which is mainly due to human-caused global warming.

Further viewing

The following animation shows how the oldest thickest sea ice has been progressively flushed from the Arctic Ocean over the last two decades. The colours are an indication of the age of the sea ice. Lighter colours are older sea ice - white is 10 years old.

Comments

So the sudden drop in sea ice in 2007 was due to weather conditions, not climate change ( excepting weather is the end product of the climate process).
How many times do we need to remind ourselves "one swallow does not a summer make"?
Sea ice is a part of the negative feedback system that keeps climate (reasonably) stable. Melting requires heat
(334J/gm if I remember rightly)and this mostly affects local sea temperature. It also keeps plankton et al very happy and bloomimg nicely, (they like it cool)which is good because they lock up a bit more CO2 and
the food chain speeds up.

This whole piece is somewhat humorous. To even use arctic ice as evidence of a global warming trend as caused by CO2 over merely 3 decades of evidence is utterly ridiculous. Anthropogenic GW advocates will cite that the Northwest Passage has opened the for the first time since records began in 1978. Since records began. Sorry, but if a norweigan sailor by the name of Roald Amundsen could navigate the passage in 1906, then you're going to have to accumulate another century of evidence of so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming before the case is made. Remember people, satellite data is only available after satellites were invented...

What jecht8 either doesn't know or acknowledge is that it took Amundsen 3 years to make the trip because only bits opened up at a time. Also, he took an extremely shallow water route sticking close to the mainland shore.

When we speak of the NW passage opening now, we're talking about being able to go pretty much full speed, just steering around a few bergs - and it's the more northern, deep water route.

Beginning in early January 2009, sensor drift caused an underestimation of ice that grew until the error was finally caught in the mid-February. Internet visitors who look to the NSIDC for data sent emails to the center and, it became clear that there was a significant problem—sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as open ocean. (See NSIDC)

MORE . . . (May 4, 2009)

Ice in the Arctic is often twice as thick as expected, report surprised scientists who returned last week from a major scientific expedition. The scientists - a 20-member contingent from Canada, the U.S., Germany, and Italy - spent one month exploring the North Pole as well as never-before measured regions of the Arctic. Among their findings: Rather than finding newly formed ice to be two metres thick, "we measured ice thickness up to four metres," stated a spokesperson for the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research of the Helmholtz Association, Germany's largest scientific organization.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/04/lawrence-solomon-deep-arctic-ice-surprises-scientific-expedition.aspx

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers … all point to a radical change in climate conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface. … Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes in ice-free water. … Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice have been were found, there are now often moraines... At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea, they have entirely disappeared.
- - -
The above alarming excerpts were taken from an October report to the US Weather Bureau. October 1922, that is, not 2009. So it has happened before, and will happen again. We should not think that everything is so special for our time: the contents of this site strike me as very centered around here and now. It is 10 years this, 30 years that, highest since record began in 1978, and so on. That is a very short time perspective. Somehow the lack of perspective in the climate discussions remind me of the 2000+ year old quote attributed to Socrates that most people would place in our time frame:
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

It is presumptuous to think that mankind rules the earth's climate. There are other, more powerful, forces in play. But we think we can raise or lower the average temperature of the earth at will! 0.33 degrees up, or why not 4 degrees. Or raise the oceans, 38 centimeters up, or why not 6 meters, or whatever ! Invent a figure, and people will bow to you in awe. Ridiculous. Anything could happen, and probably will, but we are not in control.

Well Riccardo, who was warming it so much then, when human CO2 emissions were only a fraction (less than 1/10) of what it is now? The cows and their methane outlets? What explanation do you have in your 'data'?

Thank you very much for acknowledging that there are other forcings than CO2, and that climate changes similar to what we are experiencing now, have occurred before. It seems to me that 99% of what is presented here is focussed on CO2 only, as if there were no other explanation to anything at all happening on this planet.
Also, thanks for the links! I am continually reading up on more facts presentations and connected debates within this great site (and some others). I am slowly learning, and by now I know a lot more than the average person in the street, but I also recognize how little I know compared to those who have studied this field seriously for years.

Argus,
I'm glad you now realize that we all think that there's not just CO2. It's an important point to make clear as did our host writing a post on it. It is only by looking at all the important factors that scientists can be so confident on the causes of recent and past climate variations.
Please keep reading and asking, it won't take that much time :)

the ice itself is about to set a record high for the date in the DMI database (emphasis added).

BTW, that database includes the years 2005-2010. We are about to set a record high for a specific date in a statistically insignificant 6 year period. Huzzah!

With just 3 more years, we draw a different conclusion:
Note that the annual rebound of new ice is always steeper than the melt. And yes, even with globally increasing temperatures, there will still be winter in the Arctic.

Meanwhile the ice volume remained far below previous record lows through the end of September. Ice volume is now only about 20% of what it was in 1979 while extent is about 60%. However, the two factors ultimately ARE linked... if volume hits 0% extent perforce will as well.

Unless the volume trend suddenly levels off for some reason Goddard only has a few more years (at best) of being able to play games with extent data.

You're missing the point. None of those examples suggest that the changes will be monotonic year-after-year. When discussing global warming we are referring inherently to long term trends. Given the degree of annual variation, you need about 15 years to establish statistical significance. A 2-3 year trend means little to nothing with regard to the long term trends being discussed.

This is a common misunderstanding among many skeptics and this same discussion has played out many many times on this site. It is in no way new or "sudden".

The natural variation referred to is of the inter-annual short-term variety. If you take a look at the graph provided in this post, you can see clearly that there has been a clear downward trend extending from about 1970. You may also notice that there are many 2-3 year "recoveries" amidst this trend. It is because of this variability in the signal that you must look at 10+ years of data to make any claims about whether the ice is melting or growing over the long term.

@NQoA: because they're not certain about the particular characteristics of that glacier that make it resist the global trend towards glacier retreat.

Again, no one said all glaciers would recede at the same time, or at the same rate. Given the number of glaciers on the world, some are bound to react differently. The fact remains, however, that an overwhelming majority of glaciers are retreating.

Perhaps without realizing that the discussion was to be moved to this thread, muoncounter provided you an explanation on the 'ice age' thread.

Please note that he cites directly from the link you provided. The article's own tone seems to be in opposition to the use to which you wish to put it, a behaviour which seems lamentably common among contrarians who visit this site.

The article suggests that this glacier is certainly anomalous, but since the rest of the world's ice (as documented in this very post or handily summarized with this search of SkS) continues to decline, I hardly see how it can present a major challenge to the science supporting AGW.

Certainly I would conjecture that one factor in the Perito Monero glacier's stability would be an increase in precipitation (specifically, snowfall at the glacier's source), which follows from an increase in atmospheric water vapour, which follows from (wait for it...) warming temperatures.

Sooner or later, though, if temperatures continue to rise, Perito Monero will follow its fellow glaciers into decline.

At any rate, it seems to me that bringing up Argentine glaciers is a complete non sequitur - perhaps even a red herring - when it comes to discussions specifically focused on Arctic sea ice decline.

@Argus: no one said CO2 was the only forcing. To claim otherwise would be a type of strawman fallacy.

The point you're apparently missing is that, no, the climate change we are currently experiencing is not like what has happened before. We have a pretty good idea of why climate changed in the past, and none of the various circumstances that provoked past change is at play today

What *is* different, of course, is that this time we're pouring gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that CO2 is causing temperatures to rise.

Just to make things clear, though: are you in fact disagree with NQoA? Because the latter seems to think there is no warming, while you claim the warming is natural. Aren't going to argue with NQoA as well? After all, he's also disagreeing with you.

I'd love to see some "skeptics" break the unspoken rule once in a while, but I don't think this is going to happen here...

Perhaps if you had read Dr. Rivera's extended comments in the longer version of the article here:

"One hypothesis for the 3-mile-wide (5 kilometer-wide) Perito Moreno's advance is the glacier's apparent insensitivity to changes in what glaciologists call the equilibrium line on glaciers, Rivera said.

Roughly equivalent to the snow line, the equilibrium line is the elevation above which the glacier is growing, due to snow accumulation, and below which the glacier is melting.

When this line moves higher up a hill or a mountain due to rising temperatures, for example, more of the glacier is situated in the melting zone, and the glacier retreats.

But because Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier is so steep in the area where the equilibrium line falls, climate shifts don't impact the line's movement much, at least as it relates to the height of the mountain, Rivera noted.

As a result, the amount of of ice lost or gained is minimal.

It could also be that Perito Moreno simply hasn't got all that much to lose.

The lake where Perito Moreno ends—Lago Argentino—is shallower than the bodies of water at the ends of most glaciers.

Most glaciers calve, or release ice, in deep water, but not Perito Moreno, where the calving rates are higher than on other Patagonian glaciers.

That means less of the glacier is in the melting zone below the equilibrium line.

As heavy snowfall above the equilibrium line pushes the glacier downhill, the glacier breaks up when it hits the lake, Rivera explained.

Such impacts kept the glacier from growing longer when the climate was cooler, and thus more likely to expand, he said.

If Perito Moreno had extended into a deep lake area, it would have become a longer glacier, and Earth's recent warming trend would be causing the glacier to melt and its ice to retreat more easily, Richard Alley, a glaciologist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, said in an email.

"Instead, we have a shorter glacier, with less [of a] zone where the warming can cause melting, but a large high-elevation [snow and ice] accumulation zone," Alley added."

Forming an opinion based on an incomplete news article on one glacier that happens to be advancing at a time when glaciers worldwide are in retreat is cherry-picking.

No one said glacial retreat would be linear and uniform. Perito Moreno, for the reasons surmised, is one of the exceptions to the overall trend.

Natural cycle? Really?Not this year:Observations from the ground in the Eastern Arctic, ... and views taken by satellites at 500 kilometres above the earth’s surface showed ArcticNet participants that ice formation in 2010 is abnormally slow. ... “We have dramatic changes taking place,” with the Arctic becoming a place of rain instead of snow ...

As I said on the other thread, AGW is responsible for ice loss. AO is also a factor and negative AO should bring a recovery in ice. Another factor is last year's El Nino and a decline in ice. This year should see a continued recovery due to negative AO if that theory holds (paper linked on other thread). That still leaves the question on the other thread of the effects of AGW on AO according to models.

With that said, we have had two winters, back-to-back as it happens with incredibly low bouts of the AO, but two data points are obviously not enough to establish whether or not this marks the beginning of a long-term trend.

I'm curious to see whether this is evidence of a transition to a new state or simple internal climate variability. Time will tell.

The mechanisms and physics behind Arctic amplification in this case, are very well established.

Essentially, in broad terms, yes. Arctic sea ice extent in December 2010 and January 2011 have been running at or near record lows. Hudson Bay only froze over completely over a month later than average. There is still no sea ice along the Labrador coast.

#27 Trueofvoice, yes, recovery is slower due to the negative AO (and negative NAO) bringing lots of very warm air into NE Canada. It's possible we could see the negative AO regime bringing us less ice in general.

#26 Albatross, I agree that it is too short a time period to tell if negative AO is a trend or just a random excursion. The paradox paper in the other thread called it red noise causing episodic behavior.

Muoncounter, in the Science is Settled thread you said "What is becoming apparent is that prior predictions of these 'larger changes' were conservative. That suggests the natural cycles aren't so natural any more."

I agree that the local warming feedback you referred to there is probably underestimated. What you did not consider in that thread is that the (likely natural) cycle of positive AO in the first half of the 90's also contributed to ice loss. What we will need to look at next is whether the ice loss from AGW and local feedback overwhelms the recovery we should see from negative AO and La Nina. Amd as I said in my previous post we still don't know the effect of AGW and ice loss on the AO.

Eric,
It might be useful to determine whether ice loss can be modeled by a combination of AGW and AO.

If that is correct, there ought to be a long term trend with residuals. See the graphs here, here and here for ideas about the trend; quadratic looks reasonable.

The oscillation's timing should be tested against any periodicity in these residuals. If the magnitude of the residuals is small, it would indicate that the oscillation is relatively weak as a driver of ice loss.

"the ice cap extents over the last 60 years the north pole all but completly melts EVERY YEAR."

Sorry, Briago, but that's just not true; the Arctic polar ice does not all but completely melt each year. The NSIDC has excellent data; see their October 2010 press release for a recent summary.

One of the great things about SkS is the information here is based on research and data. In short, facts. Most of the posters also strive to substantiate their claims with evidence. If you are serious about the subject of climate change (and you should be), please put your opinions on hold for a while, look around and learn.

Camburn,
You need to stop posting gibberish about things you do not know. This Wikipedia article documents that the entire Northwest passage was ice filled until 10 years ago. Your assertion that it has been passable by non-icebreaking vessels for decades is simply untrue. Capt. Larsens voyage has been replicated in recent years, in only a few weeks to make the passage, it is no longer remarkable for a light icebreaker to transit the NW passage.

It is remarkable that someone who posts so little data is so fast to question scientists who actually measure the Arctic ice. How can you question that work when you have no idea how they measured it?

In 2007, a lightweight catamaran made the 3,200-mile Northwest Passage voyage entirely by sail. Peter Semotiuk, who runs a single-band sailor's radio network at a port in the middle of the passage, completed the voyage in 1988 and said: "This summer [2007] the passage was largely wide open. It's a very different picture to say 20 years ago, when I travelled the length of the passage."

Corporal Henry Larsen's St. Roch was made from extra thick timbers of Douglas Fir, sheeted in Australian gumwood and powered by a diesel engine.

#35, also worth reading Polyak et al and associated data links within to get a context of Arctic ice variability over the past century and also Holocene. You're embarrassing yourself by suggesting that there has been anything other than a sharp decline in Arctic ice since about the 1970s. The last time extents were as low is reasonably well-constrained by dating of wood on old shorelines and of wood trapped in ice shelves - several thousand years ago. [caused by higher Arctic insolation in the early-mid-Holocene].

As Michael Sweet and Bibliovernis have shown, there is no evidence that ice levels in the 1940s were anywhere near today's levels. Anecdotes of sailors commenting on the lack of ice have to be placed in context - a context of a very large amount of ice up there in the early part of the century. Their 'lack of ice' could easily be a great deal of ice by today's standards. A bit like a Scot thinking a day of 20C is hot, which makes sense if you live in Scottish summers, but would make no sense for somebody from Italy!

skywatcher:
Where have I posted that there is not a sharp decline presently in Arctic Ice?

I have posted papers that show the variability in Arctic Ice over a long time period.

I will state again, for Capt Larson to have made the voyage in 1944 was a feat and a testament to the conditions that year. This also coincides with the period that Greenland had temperatures just slightly lower than present.

Here is the route of the St Roch. Note that it went between Banks Island and Victoria Island.
Watch the ice this summer and see if this lane is ever passable.Norther Route

With reference to DB's moderator response above, I would be prepared to try to get something written (if only for my own future reference) but I would need to be able to find all previous references to the St Roch on SkS, because I think quite a bit of relevant information is already there - it just needs to be gathered together and researched in more detail.
Is there any way of gathering this information ?

Response:

[DB] Short answer: There's no easy way to find a comprehensive listing in all the SkS comments. A search of various terms will bring up a listing of blog posts containg the terms, but one is still forced to then hunt-and-peck through the sometimes length comment threads.

If you are interested in doing it, it would be easiest (from a manhours perspective) to start from scratch.

This is not particularly relevant for current behaviour though. More important is how good the aerosol forcing is, or the indirect impacts of black carbon etc. - but we don't know the real answer. - gavin

Note the bit about "not being relevant for current behavior"...because the ice is currently disappearing in the Arctic 4 times faster than predicted by all models except Maslowski's (which is still tracking for his 2016±3 years).

" This is mostly about a quantification of the size of internal variability. By looking at multiple runs with the same forcing and looking at the variability in short trends, you can make a statement about the range. The current trend is at the edge of what the NCAR runs show, and so it is conceivable that what we are seeing has been a weaker forced trend, combined with a (stochastic) increase to the trend because of internal variability. With that assumption, one can look at the other simulations and calculate the likelihood of the stochastic component going the opposite way and slowing down the observed trend. But these likelihoods rely on the NCAR model's estimates of both the forced trend and the internal variability being correct. The former is less likely than the latter"

RyanStarr, setting aside the fact that it IS a new study and thus there hasn't been time to analyze or test its accuracy yet;

The study author also said that it should not be taken to mean that the Arctic ice is not retreating. Rather, when they incorporated what they believe to be the possible range of mechanical impacts on sea ice loss (a new form of analysis which they had to assign large uncertainty bands to) they found that the trend over the next 10 years could be either up or down... but that the trend over the next 20 or more years was sharply downward.

The biggest problem I see with their argument that the upcoming ten years could see a significant upward trend is that there hasn't been a single previous upward trend of that duration in the satellite record. If you cherry pick very carefully you can find a couple of five year periods where the trend was slightly positive, but nothing close to statistical significance let alone a ten year duration. If they were right about mechanical effects producing a roughly 50% chance of significant 10 year upward trends then we should have seen one by now, or at least something close.

Time will tell. However, it doesn't change the fact that we are currently at a record low ice volume, a record low ice area, and a near record low ice extent. The only reason the extent isn't a record low is that the average concentration of the ice pack is. Currently, only ~57% of the ice extent is actually covered in ice (e.g. ice area is 57% of ice extent). Basically, this means that the ice is more spread out than at any previous time in the satellite record. 2007 set the record low extent because winds pushed the ice into a small highly concentrated mass. 2011 currently has an only slightly higher extent despite the ice being the most spread out it has ever been. This is consistent with an example I've been using for a few years;

The same volume of ice, but broken up and spread out it has 10 times the area and 66.67 times the extent. To get extent back down to 100 sq ft, 985 of the 1' x 1' x 1' cubes (98.5%) would have to melt. Obviously that is the extreme case and that kind of perfect breakup and spreading doesn't occur naturally, but it illustrates how it is possible for extent to remain largely unchanged as the ice breaks up and melts away.

According to PIOMAS ice volume has set a new record low for the day, each and every day, from 12/20/2009 through 07/31/2011 (the last date data is available for currently). That's 589 consecutive days of new record lows. If the rate of volume decline seen over that time period continued then volume would hit zero in three years. As DB notes, Maslowski's volume projection is the only 'model' which has matched the rate of ice loss over the past five years or so. If that doesn't change in the next few years we'll be seeing only tiny remnants of ice in summers within this decade.

@DB, not sure what you mean, the general message from the AGW supporting side of the argument has been that ice loss is accelerating and will continue to as CO2 levels rise. This study suggests otherwise, that a high degree of natural variability exists in the decadal time frame. They say 50-60 years is required to pass before warming effects become apparent.

It would also suggest that any current trend is also natural, unless you want to entertain the notion of 'spurts' of AGW ice loss. This very much contradicts the view popularly expressed on this site, this thread actually.

The news isn't so old, it's still August, and hasn't been discussed _here_ at all.

Response:

[DB] For the many reasons stated earlier, the study is essentially a thought experiment not supported by actual observations and metrics. You were pointed out why it's not applicable to what we observe and measure by myself in my earlier response to you and by CBD in his repy to you above.

"The news isn't so old, it's still August,"

Compared to the rate of demise of the Arctic Sea Ice, as ably denoted by muoncounter below, the study is indeed old news. Obsolete, even.

"and hasn't been discussed _here_ at all."

Just because we allow occasional reinvention of the wheel does not also mean we will suffer through continual reinvention of the flat tire.

An understatement. Kay et al 2011 say just the opposite of Ryan's claim:

On all timescales examined (2–50+ years), the most extreme negative observed late 20th century trends cannot be explained by modeled natural variability alone. ... In a warming world, CCSM4 shows that multi-decadal negative trends increase in frequency and magnitude, and that trend variability on 2–10 year timescales increases. --emphasis added